10 ms·

"Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the

"Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible." It is only evil when the other guys are doing it.

twoodfin 13y ago
I'm actually fairly impressed by the degree of outrage from my left-wing friends. I figured most of them would be far more rationalizing now that "their guy" was in charge. Similarly, I'm not getting too riled up about all this, since I thought programs like this were Constitutional back when "my guy" was running them.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I have to admit I like the variant with court and Congressional oversight just a wee bit better... but as long as people are able to buy guns all willy-nilly and avoid vaccinating their children because of their special religious rites, it's hard for me to claim with a straight face that the NSA is even in my top 25 list of things I'd worry about.
  - hnal943 13y ago
    Or to summarize, you're too bothered by freedoms to worry about tyranny.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Everyone has a priority list, whether they acknowledge it or not. If everything is important, nothing is important.
- selter01 13y ago
  Not to cause offense, but I find that, in general, leftists are more likely to speak against "their guy", and conservatives usually support "their guy". Not sure why, but it's just what I've observed through the years.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Well, they do lobby heavily for the religious vote. Better to keep a 'good Christian' in the Presidency than some 'godless Liberal.'
    - jebblue 13y ago
      If faith in something greater than oneself gives people hope; I'd think that liberals would not have a problem with that.
      - pyre 13y ago
        Liberals aren't against it, but the most fanatically religious people tend towards conservative candidates, which was what I was (ineffectively) trying to get across.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - MartinCron 13y ago
        And you saw how well that worked.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    I wonder how much of it is a lame duck effect: The bottom never fell out of GWB's conservative support until his second term, either, despite much to complain about.
    - anaptdemise 13y ago
      The bureaucracies don't change much between administrations and there is a lot of the same faces at the top between administrations. It causes a permanence of policy regardless of the party. In fact, the bureaucracy are more or less required to be non-partisan in their long term policies. The hypocrisy is probably more of an effect of indoctrination into the bureaucracies than of actual changes in an individual politicians views. It would be difficult for a president to reverse 8+ years of an institution's operations, especially when those have been funded for longer by congress.
- spikels 13y ago
  Unfortunately your friends are not representative of most people on the left in the US. According to a recent Pew poll Democrats find NSA surveillance programs more acceptable than in 2006 despite all the recent revelations: Democrat Views of NSA Surveillance (Pew) Jan 2006 - 37% Acceptable, 61% Unacceptable June 2013 - 64% Acceptable, 34% Unacceptable Change: +27% -27% Also despite a more negative wording of the question (in my opinion): Jan 2006: "NSA has been investigating people suspected of terrorist involvement by secretly listening in on phone calls & reading emails without court approval..." June 2013: "NSA has been getting secret court orders to track calls of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism..." Not that Republicans are any better. They went the other way for probably similar political reasons. But at least, in my opinion, they are moving in the right direction for now. I think I can safely predict this will at least partially reverse next republican president[1]. http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph... [1] Edit: Interesting side effect of democracy: since our leaders have the support of a majority of voters the cognitive dissonance of voting for someone who supports policies you don't like will lead a significant portion to support those policies anyway.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    These aren't polls of the same thing, or of "NSA Surveillance" generally, despite Pew's spin on it. The 2006 question askes about warrantless wiretapping ("listening in on phone calls...without court approval") The 2013 questions asks about tracking calls (not listening in) under FISA warrants ("secret court orders to track calls"). Not the same thing.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specifically, that it has acceptable measures in place to reduce and eliminate purely domestic intercepts.
      - 13y ago
- thret 13y ago
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk12ALX9fz8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk12ALX9fz8
mtgx 13y ago
There can be only one country to spread democracy.

twoodfin 13y ago

I'm actually fairly impressed by the degree of outrage from my left-wing friends. I figured most of them would be far more rationalizing now that "their guy" was in charge. Similarly, I'm not getting too riled up about all this, since I thought programs like this were Constitutional back when "my guy" was running them.

mpyne 13y ago
I have to admit I like the variant with court and Congressional oversight just a wee bit better... but as long as people are able to buy guns all willy-nilly and avoid vaccinating their children because of their special religious rites, it's hard for me to claim with a straight face that the NSA is even in my top 25 list of things I'd worry about.
- hnal943 13y ago
  Or to summarize, you're too bothered by freedoms to worry about tyranny.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Everyone has a priority list, whether they acknowledge it or not. If everything is important, nothing is important.
selter01 13y ago
Not to cause offense, but I find that, in general, leftists are more likely to speak against "their guy", and conservatives usually support "their guy". Not sure why, but it's just what I've observed through the years.
- pyre 13y ago
  Well, they do lobby heavily for the religious vote. Better to keep a 'good Christian' in the Presidency than some 'godless Liberal.'
  - jebblue 13y ago
    If faith in something greater than oneself gives people hope; I'd think that liberals would not have a problem with that.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Liberals aren't against it, but the most fanatically religious people tend towards conservative candidates, which was what I was (ineffectively) trying to get across.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      And you saw how well that worked.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I wonder how much of it is a lame duck effect: The bottom never fell out of GWB's conservative support until his second term, either, despite much to complain about.
  - anaptdemise 13y ago
    The bureaucracies don't change much between administrations and there is a lot of the same faces at the top between administrations. It causes a permanence of policy regardless of the party. In fact, the bureaucracy are more or less required to be non-partisan in their long term policies. The hypocrisy is probably more of an effect of indoctrination into the bureaucracies than of actual changes in an individual politicians views. It would be difficult for a president to reverse 8+ years of an institution's operations, especially when those have been funded for longer by congress.
spikels 13y ago
Unfortunately your friends are not representative of most people on the left in the US. According to a recent Pew poll Democrats find NSA surveillance programs more acceptable than in 2006 despite all the recent revelations: Democrat Views of NSA Surveillance (Pew) Jan 2006 - 37% Acceptable, 61% Unacceptable June 2013 - 64% Acceptable, 34% Unacceptable Change: +27% -27% Also despite a more negative wording of the question (in my opinion): Jan 2006: "NSA has been investigating people suspected of terrorist involvement by secretly listening in on phone calls & reading emails without court approval..." June 2013: "NSA has been getting secret court orders to track calls of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism..." Not that Republicans are any better. They went the other way for probably similar political reasons. But at least, in my opinion, they are moving in the right direction for now. I think I can safely predict this will at least partially reverse next republican president[1]. http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph... [1] Edit: Interesting side effect of democracy: since our leaders have the support of a majority of voters the cognitive dissonance of voting for someone who supports policies you don't like will lead a significant portion to support those policies anyway.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  These aren't polls of the same thing, or of "NSA Surveillance" generally, despite Pew's spin on it. The 2006 question askes about warrantless wiretapping ("listening in on phone calls...without court approval") The 2013 questions asks about tracking calls (not listening in) under FISA warrants ("secret court orders to track calls"). Not the same thing.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specifically, that it has acceptable measures in place to reduce and eliminate purely domestic intercepts.
    - 13y ago
thret 13y ago
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk12ALX9fz8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk12ALX9fz8

mtgx 13y ago

There can be only one country to spread democracy.